Can Port Forwarding cause any problems?

The DLink DIR-825  isn't a modem/router - much more a basic (and dated) WiFi router with an Ethernet WAN port.

What does stop you from replacing this DIR-825 by the Netgear XR500 (in router mode)?

Ref. the port forwarding: The same port(s) can not be forwarded (neither by static port forward nor by UPnP PMP) to more than one NATed IP address. However, with a modern router like the XR500 these game consoles are able to handle the required port forwardings automatically.

Hello StephenB!

Firstly, thank you for taking out the time to answer all the questions and help me out. I have gained a lot of clarity by reading your reply. It was very precise and I think I have you have helped a tonne! :)

---

This doesn't actually get rid of double-NAT.  You still have external IP address-> (DIR-825 NAT) -> DIR825 private address -> (XR500) -> XR500 private address.  That is, you still have two devices that are doing back-to-back NAT translation.

 

What you have done is avoided the complexity of doubled port forwarding - since all unsolicited inbound internet traffic is being routed to the XR500.

 

Thank you for clarifying this. I was completely unaware that this doesn't technically get rid of Double-NAT. I think avoiding the complexity of doubled port forwarding is a good solution for now but seems more like a bandaid solution that I have done. I want to ideally make the XR500 the main router and get rid of the first router altogether. I will contact my ISP and arrange accordingly.

FWIW, it is safe to post private IP addresses, since they are not internet routable.  Posting those addresses can make it easier for people to respond.  Private address ranges are:

• 198.x.x.x
• 10.x.x.x
• 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network

 

Oh okay, I thought that it would be safe but didn't want to take the chances. Thank you for clearing the air on this. Yes, absolutely it would make it easier for others to respond. Will definitely keep this in mind when posting :) 

Yes, and in some case you might need to do port-forwarding in order to access internet services.

 

When you do forward ports, you should also reserve the IP address of the destination (e.g. the xbox or the PS4) in the XR500.  That ensures that the forwarded traffic will always reach the device you intend.

 

Interesting. I have already reserved IP addresses for all my main devices like the Xbox One, PS4, my laptop, and mobile phone so this is something I'm very happy about. I don't know if there's a huge benefit of setting static IPs but like you mentioned, in the case of port-forwarding, it is vital.

If the services are working well now, then there is no benefit to port forwarding (and you shouldn't do it).

 

Normally NAT requires a two-way connection to the internet service/device.  The connection begins outbound (with the xbox or PS4 reaching out to the service).  Once that happens, the NAT allows a reverse connection to run over the same path.  

 

All port-forwarding does it enable an inbound connection to be made without the outbound one.  The way it does that is to tell the router to send all traffic received on the port to the xbox (or ps4).

 

There is an alternative way that this can be set up in the router.  Most routers support a service called uPNP.  That allows the application on the xbox/ps4 to tell the router to set up the inbound connection.  It has the same effect as port forwarding, except it is done automatically instead of manually.  That also allows the port forwarding to be done dynamically instead of statically.

This is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you so much, I think this has answered the question perfectly. I am taking your advice and not setting up port forwarding since my devices seem to work fine at the moment. Additionally, uPnP is also enabled on the router as adviced (I think this was enabled by default on my router).

I think this is really the same question asked two different ways.

 

Port forwarding can expose your devices to hacking, since it allows any device on the internet to reach your consoles using those ports.  So you should always be cautious about forwarding a port.

 

And you can only forward a port to a single device.  In particular, if you forward port 80 to the xbox, then you wouldn't be able to forward that port to a web server on a different console.

 

In your case, your table appears to be the one Microsoft publishes for use of xbox live ( https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/networking/network-ports-used-xbox-live ).  Note their statement: To let your Xbox One console communicate with Xbox Live, you might have to open or forward ports...

 

If your console is already working with Xbox Live, then there's no reason for forward these ports.  If it's not working, then you likely will have to forward at least some of them.  You can see which ones by looking at the upnp connection list in the xr500.  Anything missing there likely needs to be forwarded.

Yes, the console is working absolutely fine, I was just under the false impression that I could get improved connectivity of some sort via port-forwarding. But I think with uPnP enabled, everything seems to be working fine.

I think you have brought to light the security aspect of port-forwarding so I think I will be cautious now when thinking of forwarding any ports.

Thanks again for all the help StephenB! I really appreciate it :)